Skip to main content
Log in

Understanding ‘sensorimotor understanding’

  • Published:
Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Sensorimotor theories understand perception to be a process of active, exploratory engagement with the environment, mediated by the possession and exercise of a certain body of knowledge concerning sensorimotor dependencies. This paper aims to characterise that exercise, and to show that it places constraints upon the content of sensorimotor knowledge itself. Sensorimotor mastery is exercised when it is put to use in the service of intentional action-planning and selection, and this rules out certain standard readings of sensorimotor contingency knowledge. Rather than holding between movements and sensory inputs or appearances, sensorimotor contingencies concern the suite of ways in which an object can be revealed through exploration. Sensorimotor knowledge is thus directed through experience to the world itself.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Compare O'Regan and Noë's (2001) treatment to Noë (2004). Daniel Hutto (2005), furthermore, argues that sensorimotor understanding is superfluous, and that what determines the content of perception is the instantiation of sensorimotor contingencies themselves

  2. See Schellenberg's (2007) "sentient-statue" objection for more on these possibilities

  3. The exception being, perhaps, hypothetical cases in which an object is entirely enveloped by part of a creature's body

  4. Although there may be a suite of movements of the hands and fingers that is characteristic of the tactile perception of a cube; an activity that enables the agent to keep her fingertips in contact with the surface of the object, for example. This feature seems to be peculiar to the tactile modality, though, and renders it an unhelpful model for the others

  5. Noë (2002, 2004, 2009a) can be read as adopting this view, as when the content of experience is described as 'two dimensional' (2009a, p2), and through the use of examples, like that of the post-operative cataract patient, that appear to fit this model naturally. However, Noë's account of the two-dimensionality of experience is given an importantly nuanced treatment in his response to Campbell, Martin, and Kelly (Noë 2008), where both 'levels' of content are understood as direct encounters with parts of the environment, and neither is given precedence over the other.

    The two-tier construal should be distanced, too, from subpersonal, computational treatments of vision (e.g. Marr 1982), on which multiple levels of content are iterated into an overall perceptual representation. Intermediate levels of content, on views of that sort, do not come about through the exercise of the perceiver's sensorimotor skills, but through subpersonal processing

  6. In certain cases, knowledge of appearances does seem to figure in intentional behaviour, as when a sniper gauges the aim of his rifle according to the apparent size and shape of a distant target viewed through a telescope, or when an artist judges the proportions of his painting according to apparent sizes in the visual field (thanks to an anonymous reviewer for pressing this point, and for these examples). These, I suggest, involve expertise concerning a specialised domain, and do not show that such knowledge forms a part of everyday experience

  7. If the healthy circle here can be sustained, then I offer my characterisation of the exercise of sensorimotor understanding as compatible with, rather than a competitor to, Noë's direct realist model

References

  • Clark, A. (2001). Visual experience and motor action: are the bonds too tight? Philosophical Review, 110(4), 495–519.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A. (2006). Vision as dance? Psyche, 12(1), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A. (2007). What reaching teaches: consciousness, control, and the inner zombie. British Journal of the Philosophy of Science, 58(3), 563–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A, & Kiverstein, J. (2009). Slipping the mesh. Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

  • Clark, A., & Toribio, J. (2001). Sensorimotor chauvinism? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(5), 979–980.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodale, M. (1998). Where does vision end and action begin? Current Biology, 8(14), R489–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodale, M. (2001). Real action in a virtual world: commentary on O'Regan & Noë. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 24(5), 984–985.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutto, D. (2005). Knowing what? Radical versus conservative enactivism. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 4(4), 389–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurley, S. (1998). Consciousness in Action. Harvard University Press.

  • Hurley, S. & Noë, A. (2005). Can Hunter-Gatherers Hear Colour? In Brennan, G., Goodin, R. and Smith, M. (Eds) Common Minds: Essays in Honour of Philip Pettit. OUP.

  • Kelly, S. (2007). Content and constancy. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 76(3), 682–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandik, P. (2005). Action-oriented representation. In Kathleen Akins & Adrew Brook (Eds.), Cognition and the Brain: The Philosophy and Neuroscience Movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marr, D. (1982). Vision. New York: W.H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milner, D., & Goodale, M. (1995). The Visual Brain in Action. OUP.

  • Myin, E., & O’Regan, J. K. (2009). Situated perception and sensation in vision and other modalities: a sensorimotor approach. In P. Robbins & M. Aydede (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Situated Cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noë, A. (2002). On what we see. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 83(1), 57–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noë, A. (2004). Action in Perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noë, A. (2006). Experience of the world in time. Analysis, 66(289), 26–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noë, A. (2008). Reply to Campbell, Martin, and Kelly. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, LXXVI(3), 666–673.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noë, A. (2009a) Real presence. Philosophical Topics.

  • Noë, A. (2009b) Conscious reference. Philosophical Quarterly.

  • O'Regan, J. K., & Noë, A. (2001). A sensorimotor approach to vision and visual consciousness. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 24(5), 939–973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schellenberg, S. (2007). Action and self-location in perception. Mind, 116(463), 603–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westwood, D. A., & Goodale, M. A. (2003). Perceptual illusion and the real-time control of action. Spatial Vision, 16, 243–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tom Roberts.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Roberts, T. Understanding ‘sensorimotor understanding’. Phenom Cogn Sci 9, 101–111 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-009-9125-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-009-9125-7

Keywords

Navigation